Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → Wales → Rebecca riots, 1839–44 → John Thomas

The trials of accused Rebeccaites continue. From the Monmouthshire Merlin:

Carmarthen, .

The Workhouse Riot, &c.

On , an information was laid before David Danes, Esq., one of the borough magistrates, by Henry Evans, one of the rural police, against Jonathan Jones, of Brynbach, in the parish of Abernant, in this county, charging him with having, on , unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled, with divers other evil-disposed persons, at the Carmarthen workhouse, in the county of the borough of Carmarthen, and then and there created a riot and disturbance, by which said riot and disturbance divers of her Majesty’s liege subjects were put in bodily fear.

On this information a warrant was issued, and entrusted to Howell, another of the rural police, who captured the prisoner at his residence, at an early hour on , and afterwards placed him for safe custody in the hands of Woozley, the station-house keeper, by whom he was brought before William Morris, Esq., mayor, and Dr. Stacey, at .

The prisoner, Jonathan Jones, is a young man, and the individual who assumed the character of Rebecca, at the great procession of Rebeccaites through the streets of this town, on , when the mob broke into the workhouse, where their designs were fortunately interrupted by the arrival of the dragoons, under the command of Major Parlby, and at which time the ringleaders in this riot contrived to escape.

At his examination at the guildhall, , the informant, Henry Evans, was re-sworn to the information he had previously made, in the presence of the prisoner, and which information was read over and explained to him in Welsh. Subsequently, on the application of the prosecutor, who said there would be further evidence to be adduced as to the charge, the prisoner was remanded for further examination, to .

On , John Evans, of Abergwilly, in this county, carpenter, was committed by Daniel Prytherch and John Lloyd Price, Esqrs., to take his trial at the forthcoming winter assizes, charged on the oaths of David William Joshua and others, with having on riotously and tumultuously assembled with other evil disposed persons, at Glangwilly gate, near Carmarthen, and then and there demolished, pulled down, and destroyed the gate and toll-house, occupied by the said David William Joshua. The prisoner offered bail for his appearance, but it was refused.

John Thomas, of Velincwm, smith, was charged with having, on , created a riot and disturbance with other persons at Llandilo-rwnws gate, in the parish of Llanarthney, in the county of Carmarthen. Remanded to .

David Jones, was taken into custody at the county gaol, soon after the remand in the above case, charged with having, enticed one Daniel Lloyd, to commit willful and corrupt perjury in a prosecution against John Thomas, smith, for a riot and assault. This case also stands over to for further enquiry.

From the Cambrian:

. — This morning, the business of the Court commenced at the usual hour. The Attorney-General begged to enter a nolle prosequi as it regarded the indictment for felony against John Jones [acquitted of having sent a threatening letter], 22, farmer, Thomas Hughes, sawyer, and Benjamin Jones, charged with having committed a riot, and feloniously demolishing the dwelling-house of Griffith Jones, being the Pontarlleche toll-house. The charge of misdemeanour for destroying the gate, was removed by a writ of certiorari to the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Case of the Late Mr. Thos. Thomas.

 David Evans, aged 20, farmer, and James Evans, 25, labourer, were arraigned upon an indictment charging them, with divers others, unlawfully, riotously, and tumultuously assembled at Pantycerrig, in the parish of Llanfihangel Rhosycorn, and with having, during the riot, assaulted one Thomas Thomas, and with force demanded the sum of forty shillings, with intent to steal the same.

Both prisoners, who were defended by Mr. Nicholl Carne, pleaded “Not Guilty.”

Considerable interest was felt as to the result of this trial, from the circumstance of the prosecutor, who was the principal witness, having been found dead under very peculiar circumstances, and that of his premises having been fired soon after the prisoners had been committed. The Attorney-General said, that the charge against the prisoners was one of misdemeanour — for having committed a riot in going to the house of the prosecutor Mr. Thomas Thomas, who had since lost his life; but he must in justice to the prisoners observe, that having been in custody, that circumstance could not in the remotest degree cast any reflection upon them. Whatever violence might have been offered Mr. Thomas Thomas (and he did not say such was the case), it could in no way have been done by them. The names of the prisoners could not be connected with any catastrophe of that kind, for they were in gaol at the time. It was only to be regretted that the deceased’s evidence could not be obtained excepting from the deposition taken before the Magistrates, and that was evidence in law. It appeared that a number of persons disguised in the usual characteristics of Rebeccaites, with circumstances of considerable force and violence, demanded a sum of money from the prosecutor, and this proceeding did not appear to have originated for the purpose of removing any public grievance, real or imaginary; but, in which it appeared, that the alarming state of the country had been made subservient to the promotion of a private end, and to the settlement of a mere personal claim between the parties. A short time previous to , it appeared by the deposition, that Mr. Thomas’s cattle strayed at night into a corn field belonging to one of the prisoners, who had estimated the damage at 10s. Early on the morning of , a number of disguised persons assembled together and surrounded the house of Mr. Thomas, and demanded 5l. as a satisfaction for the damage done to the corn. Thomas would not allow them to enter his house, neither would he go out to them, but refused to accede to their request. They then reduced their demand to 50s. and subsequently to 40s. They then dragged Thomas from his own house to the house of the prisoner David Evans, and when Thomas challenged them with having offered to settle the matter for 10s., Evans said, “’Tis now in these people’s hands.” It was for the jury to judge from that expression, whether the riot did not originate with him. The deceased then asked permission to remain in Evans’s house, but he was finally taken back to his own house, and allowed nine days to pay the money. Some time afterwards Thomas was found dead, under circumstances which he thought justly created no suspicion against any one. As far as he (the Attorney-General) could learn, those who possessed the best means of judging, were of opinion that strange and unaccountable as were many of the appearances, there was no just foundation for believing that he came to his death by violence. As reports had been circulated, he thought it right publicly to state for the sake of the character of the county, that, as far as his opinion went, there had been no reasonable grounds for supposing that the man was murdered. To resume his statement, the jury would find, that, at one o’clock, the younger prisoner and the other, who was his servant, were at the prosecutor’s house. Thomas distinctly swore to the presence of both the defendants, as the jury would find on reading the deposition. In three or four days afterwards a complaint was made, and a a warrant issued, for the apprehension of the defendants. On , the officer went to David Evans’s premises, and asked him for James Evans, when the former said that James had left his service in consequence of a quarrel, and that he had not seen him for many days. The premises were searched, and James Evans was found concealed beneath some straw on a loft. It would be proved that David Evans, in speaking of the transaction, said that they should not have done what they did, if Thomas Thomas had paid the money, and while before the Magistrates, the prosecutor persisted in saying that the demand was 5l. then 50s.s., and then 40s., when David Evans added that he had offered to take 1l. The jury must observe, that he assented to the truth of all the evidence, with the exception of the reduction to 20s. He had also pointed out the spot where he had offered to accept of 1l. He would now read the deposition. The Attorney-General then read the deposition, as taken , before Col. Trevor and J. L. Price, Esq., in the presence of the prisoners. The deceased stated, that on the day in question a number of people came to his house, and demanded satisfaction for the trespass, as described. Deceased did not go to the door, but his wife went. They at last reduced their demand to 40s. He was then taken by the collar by one of the disguised party calling himself “Becca,” and was taken to Bergwm. When there he distinctly recognized James Evans, who behaved worse to him than any of the others. He also recognized David Evans. James Evans had with him a short gun, and had his face blackened. David Evans was but slightly disguised. The Attorney-General observed, that he could very easily have identified him. They then took him to the Bergwm field. They kept him outside the door until some one went in to tell the inmates, lest they should be frightened. They then took him to the house, when he told David Evans that he had agreed to receive 40s. for the damage when the latter answered, “’Tis in the hands of these people.” The Attorney-General commented upon this answer, as affording convincing proof that the prisoner acted in concert with the mob. The deposition further stated, that after coming out of the house, James Evans pushed witness on in a contrary direction to his home, and when alone, told him, “I wish to kill you.” The party who personated Becca called upon him to bring the witness back. So that Becca, observed the Attorney-General, appeared to have been actuated by better considerations than the prisoner James Evans. The deposition concluded by stating that the party allowed deceased nine days to pay the money, and if they would visit him again, they would burn his effects. — The Attorney-General proceeded:— That was the deposition of Thomas Thomas. He had gone to his account; but the jury could not, in consequence of that, be satisfied with less proof. It was not necessary there should exist that certainty which could be produced only by witnessing the scene, but with that degree of reasonable certainty which would satisfy them in any important concerns of life. He hoped they were now rapidly coming to a close with the cases. He did not know but that he might be addressing them for the last time. That, he believed, was the last case in which these parties had taken advantage of the agitated state of the county for the purpose of committing outrages. The guilt was not inconsiderable of those who took advantage of the turbulent state of the country, arising from real or imaginary grievances, and perverted it to their own selfish purposes, for others had some excuse — excuse he should not have called it — pretense rather, who did those things on the ground of abating a public grievance. — The object of those prosecutions was not to punish every individual who had been concerned in the disturbances. Their number was so great that no reasonable man could wish, even were it possible, to punish all. The extent of the outrages and the number concerned in them forbade that wish, but the grand object was to restore the authority of the law, and regain the confidence of those who relied upon that authority for protection. He trusted the conduct of those whose duty it was to advise the Crown would not be thrown away in reclaiming the misguided inhabitants of that county. With those observation he would call the witnesses, and leave the case in their hands, and he had no doubt they would do that justice which the circumstances required. He (the Attorney-General) might be permitted to add — and he did so with unfeigned sincerity, that he had been in various parts of this country performing his official duties and exercising that profession to which he belonged, but he never, in the course of his experience, addressed any gentlemen who inspired in his mind more confidence, that the duties they discharged were done consistently with a sense of right; and he begged to thank them in the name of the public and of the country, for the attention, impartiality, and justice which marked the course of the proceedings which he had the honour to advocate.

[The following evidence was called for the purpose of introducing the depositions.]

Robert Bray, Superintendent in the A division of the Metropolitan Police, examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.: Knew deceased — saw his body the morning it was picked up.

Mr. Spurrel examined:– Am Clerk to the Magistrates. [Deposition handed to witness]. This is the deposition made by Mr. Thomas Thomas; I saw him sign it — the Magistrates also signed it.

Cross-examined by Mr. N. Carne:— Mr. Thomas Thomas first made his statement in Welsh, and it was translated into English by Mr. Price, the Magistrate. He translated into English, everything stated by Mr. Thomas. He was not sworn as an interpreter. I understand Welsh sufficiently well to understand the evidence given.

Mr. Carne went over the whole of the deposition, criticising upon the various English words, given for Welsh expressions used by the witness.

J. Lloyd Price, Esq., examined:— Am a Magistrate for this county. Took the deposition of Thomas Thomas. It was taken in Welsh. He understood English sufficiently well to correct anything which was written not in consonance with what he had said. I was at Bergwm, the residence of one of the prisoners. I do not remember the day, but it was on a Friday previous to the apprehension. I remember it, because, on the following night, his houses were burnt down. I was accompanied by a policeman of the A division of the Metropolitan police, and a special constable. I went with the officers to show them the house, because I could get no assistance in the neighbourhood that I could depend upon. When I went there, I found David Evans in bed. When he was asked for James Evans, he said, “He has left me; I would not allow him to go to Brechfa fair, and he got offended — has left me, and I have never seen him since.” He repeated the statement before I sent out the policeman to search the place. The officers then went ont, and I saw James Evans brought from a hayloft. The officers brought him to the house. I remember that near the close of the examination of Thomas Thomas, when he said that they demanded 40s., David Evans said, “When near the gate, we consented to take 20s.”

Cross-examined by Mr. Carne:– I translated nearly the whole. There might have been some portions of his statement irrelevant to the business omitted. Some people state many things which are quite irrelevant. During the first portion of the examination, I put questions to commence the examination. I had taken a previous examination for the purpose of issuing a warrant. I took that down in writing, but after the second examination, made in the presence of the prisoners, was over, I did not think the first examination of any importance, so I put them with other useless papers.

The depositions were then put in evidence, and read by the Officer of the Court.

Thomas Evans examined by Mr. Evans, Q.C.:— Is a mason. Lives with his father at Ty’nyfordd farm, half-a-mile from Pantycerrig. Lives a mile from Bergwm — the house of the prisoner, David Evans. Remembers . Remembers being disturbed about twelve or one o’clock that morning. Heard a man crying out “heigh” three times at the window. Went to the window. Saw people outside. There were several people present, but I could see only three. The first thing I heard was a man calling out, “I give you warning, that you must not go to the farm you have taken, or we will burn your hay and corn, as you see your neighbours’.” My father had taken a farm in the neighbourhood. To the best of my judgment, that person was James Evans. I knew his voice, as I was intimate with him. We had been in the same singing-school. After this, I and my father got out of bed, and went out of the house. We heard several guns fired. When in a field near Pantycerrig, I saw a number of people. It was too dark to distinguish their dress; but when the guns were fired, we could perceive something white about them. They then returned from Pantycerrig. I met a neighbour in the road, whom the mob had desired to shew them the way to Pantycerrig. Next morning, I went to Bergwm. The inmates were not up; but the servant shortly opened the door. David Evans then came downstairs. I saw a gun on the table, and said, “Here are one of Becca’s guns, I think.” D. Evans said, “Yes, it is;” and seemed surprised, and said, “Stop, let me see if there is a load in it,” and blew in it, and said there was a load. I took the screw, and drew the load — it contained powder only. I then requested D. Evans to come out, and told him “that his servant had been at our house, warning my father not to take the farm.” He denied it, and said “No; he has been in the house during the whole night.” David Evans then told James Evans, who came towards me, and said, “D–n you, tell that of me,” and raising his fist. David Evans put his hand on his shoulder, and said, “Be quiet, James.” Witness then went to Pantycerrig. On next day (Sunday) met James Evans, who said, “Why did you tell Thos. Thomas that I had confessed being at Pantycerrig.” He said the servant of Pantycerrig told him so, and added, that if he had a chance, he would put witness quiet enough; and added, “Well, if you transport me for seven years, I’ll give you a coating when I come back.”

Cross-examined:— I never had a quarrel with Evans previous to that time. To the best of my knowledge, the voice I heard was James Evans’s. Got out of bed when first I heard the man calling at the window. I told Thos. Thomas when I saw him, that James Evans was there.

Robert Bray re-called:— I accompanied Mr. Price, the Magistrate, P. C. Powell, and a special constable, to Bergwm. I saw David Evans, and went out to the barn to search for James Evans. I heard noise in the loft above the barn, and got up to the loft, and saw the feet of a man showing from under some straw. I called to him, and took off the straw. He was James Evans. We passed Thomas Thomas’s house, who was standing by the door. I said, “It was a pity you should have gone to this poor old man.” He said, we should not have gone, had he paid for the damage done by his cattle on our farm.

Rosser Thomas corroborated this witness’ statement.

Mr. Nicholl Carne then addressed the jury in reply to the evidence in support of the charge, and said he should be enabled to prove an alibi on the clearest evidence — that David and James Evans were both in bed at the time of the outrage.

After the examination of several witnesses, whose evidence appeared to be totally at variance with their former statements on oath, Mr. Carne folded up his brief and sat down.

The Judge:— Mr. Carne, if you say you will not hold a brief in this case any longer, I think you will adopt a discreet and honourable course.

The Attorney-General replied, commenting in very strong terms on conduct of the witnesses for the defence.

Verdict — Guilty. Sentence deferred.

Rebecca’s Daughters

John Jones, aged 21, stonecutter, William Jones, aged 17, stonecutter, Thomas Jones aged 14, stonecutter, Seth Morgan, aged 21, carpenter, Henry Thomas, aged 21, labourer, and Thomas Harries pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , with divers evil disposed persons, unlawfully and maliciously thrown a certain turnpike toll-house, the property of the trustees of the Three Commotts district of roads, situate at Porthyrrhyd. — Discharged on their own recognizances, to appear when called upon to receive the judgment of the Court, and to keep the peace in the mean time towards all her Majesty’ subjects.

George Daniel pleaded Guilty to the charge of having, on , committed a riot, &c., at Blaennantymabuchaf, in the parish of Llanegwad, in the county of Carmarthen. — Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear to receive the judgment of the Court when called upon.

John Thomas, smith, pleaded Guilty to the charge of having committed a riot and an assault at Llandilo-Rhynws bridge turnpike gate, on . — Discharged on his own recognizances, to appear and receive judgment whenever called upon. Mr. Chilton intimated to the Court, that it was not the intention of her Majesty’s Government, to proceed with the case against Francis M’Keirnin and George Laing, charged with the demolition of a turnpike gate, near Llanelly. The Counsel for the Crown looked into the depositions, and did not think it a proper case to be proceeded with.

William Davies, farmer, Benjamin Richards, farmer, David Thomas, farmer, William Evans, labourer, and Arthur Arthur, labourer, charged with various Rebecca outrages, were discharged by proclamation.

Thomas Morgan, aged 28, labourer, and Thomas Lewis, aged 24, labourer, pleaded Not Guilty to the charge of having, on , at Dolauhirion toll-gate, in the parish of Llanegwad, in this county, and then and there demolished the said gate. — This case was not proceeded with; but removed by certiorari into the Court of Queens Bench. In the course of a few minutes, the prisoners who perceived their companions in tribulation set at liberty, wished to withdraw their plea of Not Guilty, and to plead Guilty, but the Judge told them it was too late.

From the Cambrian, continuing the reporting on the Assizes:

Sentences

John Jones alias Shoni-Scyborfawr and David Davies, alias Dai-y-Cantwr, were then placed at the bar, for the purpose of receiving the sentence of the Court.

In passing sentence his Lordship addressed the prisoners as follows:–

John Jones, you have been convicted of shooting at a fellow subject with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm; and you have also pleaded guilty to a charge of having riotously and tumultuously demolished a house. I have too much reason to suppose that you have been guilty of other offences of the same character as those which I have mentioned. And you David Davies have pleaded guilty to a charge of demolishing a house, with others who were riotously and tumultuously assembled, and I know from your own statement that you have been guilty of many similar outrages. As far as I have been able to judge from the facts laid before me you are both strangers in this part of the country. What motive induced you to come into this county I know not; but I assume from your appearance in this part of the country shortly after those riots had begun, which have so much disgraced, and entailed so much misery upon the inhabitants, that your designs were highly inimical to public order and tranquillity. Whether you came here in pursuance of your own wicked objects, following out that which you have done elsewhere, intending to make profit for yourselves by the existence of the disturbances in this part of the country, I know not. It may be so; or, it may be that you were known to be men capable of outrage and violence; that you were known to be men who disregarded the law, and to be ready to brave its vengeance. You may have been the instruments of others in committing the offenses which you have committed. If you have been, what must their feelings be at this moment when they see those whom they have employed brought into this dilemma — about to receive sentence, they themselves as yet unknown and unharmed! You need hardly envy their feelings, if they have any, when they reflect on the sentence that is about to be passed upon you; and when they reflect, and tremble under the reflection, that although the law is slow it is for the most part sure; when they think that they will never go to sleep at night without feeling that their guilt may be discovered before the morning. I know not whether or not there are such persons; if there are, I am sure no one can envy their position or their feelings. It matters not for you whether there are not. It can make no difference to you, for it is plain you were willing agents, and not seduced into a breach of the law, but perfectly knowing all that you were about to do and its consequences. As for you John Jones you may be grateful for one thing — most thankful for it — that that gun which you fired at Walter Rees did not take effect on him, otherwise instead of sentencing you to banishment from this country, it would have been my painful duty to have pronounced upon you the punishment of a dreadful and violent death. But after the proof that you have given of your utter disregard of the law — of the rights of property — of the personal safety of your fellow subjects, it is utterly impossible I can allow you any longer to remain in this country, or ever to return to it. You David Davies may not be sent away for so long a time, but still a long term of years — probably the greater portion of those which remain to you — must be passed in a foreign land. How different will your position there be from that which it has been here. Here you were at liberty to choose your own master — sort of service — and to quit it if you did not like it; earning wages which you might enjoy and dispose of at your own option. No such liberty remains for you. You will be placed under a task-master, not chosen by yourself. You will hate to do the work which you are ordered to do, and not work chosen by yourself. You will not be allowed to quit it however irksome to you. Payment for it you will have none, except as much food as will preserve your strength, and enable you to continue your forced and unpaid labour. You will be not in name but in fact slaves; for to that I must sentence you for your guilt and for the protection of the public of this country. The sentence of the Court upon you John Jones is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of your natural life; and the sentence of the Court upon you David Davies is, that for this offence to which you have pleaded guilty, you be transported for the term of twenty years. — The prisoners heard the sentence with smiles of indifference. — They were handcuffed and removed from the dock.

The Riot at Pound.

Philip Philip and William Philip father and son, who were convicted on of having committed a riot, beaten the bailiffs, etc., at Pound, were then placed at the bar to receive sentence.

The prisoners having been called upon by the clerk of the arraigns, were addressed by the Learned Judge as follows:—

 Philip Philip and William Philip,— You are now to receive the sentence of the Court for the very serious offence of which you have been found guilty;– of a riot and an assault upon the persons of the bailiffs that came to distrain for rent on the premises of you, William Philip.  A sad thing it is to see an old man like you — a father and his son — brought up together to receive sentence for an offence of this description; an offence not committed in haste or unadvisedly, but an offence committed after mature deliberation, and which you had prepared yourselves for.  You Philip, the father, warned the bailiff the day before, that if he dared to come to execute the process which he told you he was armed with on the part of the landlady of your son’s farm, that this attack would be made upon them.  Instead of bringing up your son in obedience to the law, and to respect the rights of his landlady, you, no doubt, encouraged him in the commission of this offence.  And you, William Phillip, if you have any feelings at all, what must be your feelings at hearing your aged father sentenced to imprisonment for that offence which arose out of your own delay and neglect to pay the just debt due to your landlady, and which claim you attempted to resist by force.  It is a shocking, shocking thing to see father and son in such a disgraceful position — disgraced and degraded in the face of the whole country — and to be still more disgraced by the punishment that you must now undergo.  If people, taking advantage of the disturbed state of the country, forget the duty they owe to the law — to themselves — and to their Maker, they must be taught to remember it by the example of suffering in others — which suffering is the result of disobedience to the laws of their country and to the dictates of honesty and virtue.  You Philip Philip and William Philip availed yourselves of the disturbances in the county — of the heat and excitement which then reigned predominant in men’s minds — men who went prowling about reckless of order and of disgrace, assuming names which have become a bye-word of alarm and violence — and by their means sought to evade the payment of a just debt, but whether just or otherwise the means you adopted were highly discreditable and dangerous, as you had a right to question the legality of the demand in a court of law, but in no other manner.  For this offence, the sentence of the Court upon you Philip Philip (the father) is that you be imprisoned for twelve calendar months and the sentence of the Court upon you William Philip is that you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the term of twelve calendar months.

The Pantycerrig Outrage.

David Evans, farmer, and James Evans, labourer, who were found guilty of the assault on the person of the late Mr. Thomas Thomas, of Pantycerrig, were then brought up to receive sentence. His Lordship addressed them as follows:—

 David Evans and James Evans, you are brought before the court to receive sentence for a riot — a riot attended by circumstances of great cruelty to a very old man, who has since that time by some means or other, lost his life.  You behaved with great cruelty to him and to his family, for you went with others armed and disguised, conducting yourselves in such a manner as to cause terror in the minds of the peaceable inhabitants of the old man’s residence.  You dragged that old man from his house in the dead hour of the night, and took him to a distance from his wife and family.  You James Evans personally ill-used him during the progress of this riotous proceeding.  What must have been that poor old man’s state of feelings when be found himself in the hands of such people, in such a place, and at such an hour of the night; and what must have been the feelings of his aged wife when he was dragged from his bed and from his house by an armed and disguised rabble!  I have seldom seen or heard of an instance of greater cruelty — of a more total want of feeling than in this particular case.  The jury who tried your case recommended you to mercy.  I wish I could think that that recommendation rested on satisfactory grounds.  The Learned Judge then commented in strong terms on the conduct of the witnesses for the defence (a brother and sister of the younger prisoner), in deliberately swearing a willful falsehood, and sentenced the prisoners severally to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for the term of twelve calendar months.

Other sentences included:

David Jones was then arraigned on the charge of attempting to suborn and instigate one Daniel Lloyd to commit perjury, or to withhold his evidence against John Thomas, then under charge for riot and assault. — The offence was clearly proved against the prisoner, and he was sentenced to Twelve months’ imprisonment.

William Williams, for destroying Pentreback Gate, six calendar months’ imprisonment. His Lordship intimated that he gave the prisoner this lenient punishment by the recommendation of the Attorney-General.

From an article on the Carmarthenshire Spring Assizes in the Cambrian:

, the Learned Judge took his seat on the bench at nine o’clock. The Court, from an early hour, was extremely crowded, in consequence of the trials of several parties upon charges of Rebecca riots and burglary.

Thomas Powell, John James, Evan Davies, David Evans, Thomas Thomas, John Thomas, and John Thomas were placed at the bar, on a charge of having, on [the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser says ], at the parish of Llanfihangel-ar-arth, burglariously entered the house of one Daniel Harris, and stealing therefrom various sums of money. In other counts of the indictment, they were charged with assaults on various persons, and in others with having riotously, unlawfully, and tumultuously assembled, and creating a great noise, riot, and disturbance against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, her Crown, and dignity.

David Thomas was also charged with being an accessory before the fact. The names of two other persons (not in custody) were also in the calendar.

Messrs. Chilton, Q.C., Evans, Q.C., and E.V. Williams appeared for the Crown. Mr. Richards defended the prisoners David Evans, David Thomas, and John Thomas. The others were undefended by Counsel.

Mr. Chilton, Q.C., addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown. May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury,— The prisoners at the bar are indicted — seven of them as principals, and David Thomas as an accessory before the fact — for one of the most heinous crimes known to the law — the crime of burglary and, gentlemen, before I proceed to state facts, which will be adduced in evidence, I will observe, that I think it highly probable that, from the circumstance of the great publicity which has been given, and is invariably attendant upon offences of this description, and from the circumstance of myself and my Learned Friends appearing to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the Crown, that you are fully aware that this charge is, in some degree, mixed up with the gross outrages which have lately disgraced the country, under the name of Rebeccaism. Were this an ordinary case of that description, I should, in the performance of my duty, feel it incumbent upon me to caution you against those feelings which it is natural, and in some points of view excusable, that men moving in your stations in life should entertain; for I will not attempt to deny but that there may have been heavy burdens which the agricultural population may have, for a length of time, endured, and which it may be difficult for them to endure longer. I can make considerable allowances for this kind of feeling, but, gentlemen, in this case it will be my duty to lay before you one of the most melancholy instances of the great evil of listening to that most dangerous — most seductive doctrine, of “doing evil that good might come” — of doing that which in itself is wrong and vicious for the purpose of producing some real or imaginary good. In ordinary cases, the evils of Rebeccaism may have this extenuation, though it cannot for a moment be considered either a justification or an excuse, that they have violated the law for the purpose of suppressing and extinguishing some real or supposed public grievance; but, gentlemen, so long as human nature is human nature, and so long as the feelings and passions of humanity are what they are, when once the law is set at defiance, there will, as disclosed in a former case, false Rebeccas arise, and take advantage of the prevalence of lawless violence, and pervert those feelings for the accomplishment of private purposes — either to satisfy private malignity and spite, or, what is worse, private cupidity and love of lucre, as I fear has been the case in the charge before us. Therefore, so far from calling upon you to guard yourselves against feelings in favour of Rebeccaism, I shall call upon you to exercise the greatest care and caution before you convict either of the prisoners at the bar, to see that the charge is fully proved, and clearly brought home to them. As to the commission of the offence, and its commission under circumstances which certainly admit of no excuse or extenuation there cannot possibly arise the slightest doubt. Having made those few observations, I shall now give you a brief outline of the proceedings out of which has originated the present charge. The house which was broken open and entered on , belonged to a very old man of the name of Daniel Harris, who had no more to do with turnpike-gates or turnpike tolls than you, the gentlemen of the jury or myself. He had to pay them, but with that exception he was in no other way connected with them. He resided — I say resided, for I must tell you that these outrages and violence were such — I will not tell you that they hastened his death, but, at all events, he is now no more, and I shall be obliged to put his written testimony in evidence against the prisoners. He resided on a farm called Pantyfen Issa, in the parish of Llanfihangelararth, in this county, and, at the time of the outrage, the old man’s wife, daughter, his son-in-law, a boy, and a servant named Mary Titus, were the only inmates of the house. It is beyond doubt, that in the dead of night, during the night of , they were aroused from their beds by a disguised mob, armed with fire-arms, reaping-hooks, bludgeons, and other implements, and who commenced violently beating the door, demanding admittance in the most intimidating manner, and by their threats compelled the inmates to open the door. That they were compelled to open the door by intimidation could not he denied, when, as you shall hear from the witnesses, they were told by the armed mob that they “would not wait long for them.” Having been admitted, they entered the house to the number of eleven or twelve, and inquired if the old man had received a letter from Rebecca. I believe his son-in-law answered that he had not, when one of the mob replied that he had received more than one; they then demanded the sum of 20l. for a woman named Gwenllian Lewis. The old man told them that he had got but a sovereign and a shilling in the house. They then desired the son-in-law to procure them a candle, and Mary Titus, the servant, having lighted one, ran upstairs and hid under the bed. She could therefore give them no further account of the transaction. They searched the house, but could find no more than the 1l. 1s., which they compelled old Harris to deliver up. One of the mob then drew a ready written stamped promissory note for 20l. from his pocket, and insisted upon the old man signing it for this Gwenllian Lewis; they also insisted upon his son-in-law signing it as a security. This note they compelled them to sign, armed with guns and pistol. Having given them the money, the old man told them they had taken all he had got, that he not even a farthing to buy tobacco, upon which the one shilling was returned to him. You shall hear from the witnesses the enquiries made respecting the time the note became payable, and other details. I have already told you that the mob were not only armed, but that they were all disguised. Indeed, they were so much so, that the inmates of the house do not affect to identify any of them. To prove these facts, I shall call before you James Davies, the son-in-law, and Mary Titus. I cannot call the wife, in consequence of her infirmities, but of these facts there can be no doubt. The next question that arises is, how do I affect the prisoners at the bar. In the first place, it will be my duty to call before you two accomplices. They will tell you that the prisoner, David Thomas, who is charged with being an accessory before the fact, was the prime mover and instigator of the whole transaction. The prisoners first assembled at the house of David Thomas, on , having intended making the attack on that night. But owing to circumstances which will appear by the evidence, they did not make the attack on that night, but met again on at the house of the prisoner, David Thomas. There they disguised themselves, and went and did that which has been briefly detailed to yon. The witnesses will describe to you the part taken by each of the prisoners in the affairs of the night, though I will tell you, under the direction of his Lordship, that it is not necessary to prove what each prisoner did for if it will be proved that they went out together with one common purpose, they are all equally guilty. Now, Gentlemen, his Lordship will tell you, that you cannot with safety rely upon the evidence of an accomplice, unless his evidence be corroborated in some material points by the evidence of untainted witnesses, who have not participated in the crime. Now. gentlemen, how do I corroborate their testimony? In the first place, I shall show you the motive which had actuated the prisoner, David Thomas, throughout the whole transaction. The money was demanded from the old man pretendedly for Gwenllian Lewis. In fact, you will find that David Thomas had a kind of smattering in law. On , he entered into an agreement with Gwenllian Lewis, for the purchase of a supposed claim which she had upon Daniel Harris. He (prisoner) was to give her 13l., free of all expenses, for the amount of her claim, which was considerably more; but he was not to pay the 13l. until he had got the sum claimed from old Harris. Now I conclude, from the circumstance of no proceedings having been taken , as he did not go to law, that he found the claim was not good; but in the meantime Rebecca had arisen, and he made use of the terrors of Rebeccaism to enforce a claim which he could not do by the law of the land. The son-in-law will prove that he saw one letter upon the subject in the possession of the old man, Harris. In addition to that, it will be proved by David Lewis, who will be called, that the prisoner, David Thomas, offered him 1l. if he would go that night to Pantyfen, bringing with him a pistol, a sword, or any other implement. He made some excuse, and did not go. I will also state, that another witness was offered 8s. by David Thomas, for going to the same place. Another witness, John Jones, whose conduct I cannot commend as being entirely free from blame, yet who cannot be considered or treated as an accomplice, actually went to Thomas’s house on , and saw all the prisoners at the bar there. After they had dressed themselves in disguise, he told them that he had seen a person on the road who would be a likely party to give information to Mr. Price, the Magistrate, if he saw them. In consequence of that intimation, it was agreed that they should meet and proceed to Pantyfen on . David Thomas then said — for it was often found that the ringleader shrunk from the danger — “I will not go with you, but shall show myself at Blaenpant, that Morgans might be a witness that I had nothing to do with the matter.” There are, Gentlemen, many other facts connected with the case, which I have thought it unnecessary to state, but which you shall hear from the witnesses. You shall also hear a confession which has been made by one of the prisoners, John Thomas, of Blaenrhidian; but that you cannot consider as evidence against any of the other prisoners. You shall also hear the statement of a witness, to whom David Thomas gave an account of the proceeding. He told him much of what had taken place, and added, that he thought they had acted too leniently — that he should again go there himself, and compel the old man to pay them 40l. in cash. He had, ere that, discovered that a promissory note, obtained under such circumstances, could not be worth a penny, and that any idea of enforcing it would be futile. In point of fact, he did go to Pantyfen, but as that will be the subject of another prosecution, I forbear dwelling upon it. There is one circumstance connected with the prisoner, David Evans, that he fled the country; vigilant search had been made before he was discovered. He was, however, subsequently found concealed under a rug. I do not request you to give that circumstance more than its due weight. I believe I have given you an outline of the most prominent features of the case. You will attend and watch the evidence, and see that the charge is clearly brought home before you convict, and I am confident your verdict, whatever it may be will give satisfaction to the country.

James Davies examined by Mr. Evans:— I am the son-in-law of the late Daniel Harris, of Pantyfen. I lived with him in . He is since dead. He died on . Pantyfen is in the parish of Llanvihangel-ar-arth. I remember , being the night before the Carmarthen August fair. I, my wife, and father-in-law slept at Pantyfen on the night in question. Mary Titus and a boy also slept in the house. We were disturbed about twelve o’clock that night. We had retired to bed about nine or ten o’clock. I, my wife, and the old man slept in the same room. We were disturbed by strange people beating the doors and calling out. We were very much alarmed, and I rose and opened the door. After I opened the door, they said they required money for Gwenllian Lewis. Before I opened the door, they told me to open it in five minutes, or they would destroy the old man’s property. It was a fine moonlight night. On opening the door, I saw a number of people, about ten or twelve, strangely disguised — their faces were painted. I cannot describe their dresses, as I was too much alarmed. They told me that they had sent two ’Becca letters to the old man. Several of them came to the house, there being two of them with guns, one with a pistol, and another with a sword. They said they wanted money for Gwenllian Lewis. There was one who had a red coat. My father-in-law got up, and came to the passage. He said he had not such a sum of money in the house, for they had then named 20l. as the sum required. The old man had said he had only 1l. 1s. in the house. They ordered me to light a candle. They said, if I would not they would destroy the things. I called on Mary Titus to light a candle; she did so, and then went up-stairs. One of the men then pulled out of his pocket a ready-written note for 20l., After reading it, he requested the old man to sign it. He did so. They then said that I must sign it. Those who had guns, &c., stood at this time each side of the door. My father-in-law said he required two months to pay. One man said he should have three months to pay. The old man requested them to write the time he was to pay it. One of them then wrote something on the back of the note. Harris asked where he was to pay the money. One of them said into Morris’s Bank. Another told him to pay it into Wilkins’s Bank. The old man had the shilling back, to pay for a quarter of tobacco, after he had paid them the sovereign and the shilling. The mob remained in the house for about half-an-hour.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richards:– I can write, but that night I only put my mark to the note. My father-in-law likewise only put his mark.

The undefended prisoners put the witness no question.

John Lloyd Price, Esq., is a Magistrate for the county — took the examination of Daniel Harries, in the presence of the prisoners. The examination of Daniel Harries was taken in Welsh, and translated into English. After it was written, it was explained to deceased witness the second time. He signed it by attaching his mark to it.

By the Court:— The prisoners were taken into custody, and brought before me by warrant, in consequence of information received after the outrage. Daniel Harries had given witness information of the outrage, and in three or four months time one of the accomplices informed against several of the prisoners whom the police, by the direction of witness, apprehended.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richards:— The party who gave me information, first gave evidence voluntarily, but understanding that he had been tampered with, I sent for him. I do not remember whether the proclamation offering rewards for the destruction of gates and houses by fire was then published. I did not offer the informant any money.

Cross-examined by John Thomas:– I never promised to keep the prisoner safe and give him work if he would make the same statement as Evan Davis.

Re-examined by Mr. Chilton, Q.C.:— [Handing a written statement to witness.] John Thomas made the confession contained in this paper. I did not offer him a reward, or held out a threat or anything else.

Cross-examined:— Prisoner made the confession before Mr. Prytherch, myself, and the Clerk, Mr. Spurrell. He made it voluntarily, as he wished to become Queen’s evidence.

Daniel Prytherch, Esq., was called, said he was present when prisoner signed the confession. No threat or reward was held out to him.

Mr. Richard Spurrel examined:– I am Clerk to the Magistrates. I took the examination on . This witness corroborated Mr. Price’s evidence as to the mode adopted in taking the examination.

The examination of Daniel Harris, the deceased, was then put in, but the Court objected to it, as it had not appeared by the evidence that the prisoners were present when it was taken.

Mr. Price was recalled to prove this circumstance.

The examination of the deceased was then put in, and translated to the prisoners. It was in substance the same as that given by his son-in-law, the first witness called.

The confession of the prisoner, John Thomas, was then put in and read. The deposition said that he had been induced to go there by the other prisoner, his master — that they went to Penlan, the house of one of the prisoners, and there disguised themselves. He then named the parties present, and described the weapons carried by each of the prisoners. Prisoner himself carried a gun, and the others various other arms, such as pistols, hooks, &c. The rest of his evidence corroborated the deposition of the deceased and his son-in-law’s evidence.

Mary Titus, the servant of the deceased Daniel Harris, of Pantyfen, was then examined by Mr. Vaughan Williams.— She corroborated the evidence given in part, but not as to all the facts detailed, as she had retired up stairs as soon as the mob appeared.

Evan Davies, one of the approvers, now gave evidence. He said that John Thomas, one of the prisoners, came to his house, requested him to go with him to Pantyfen, to get money. He said there was an agreement between him and Gwenllian Lewis, that he was to raise 40l. — that he was to divide 5l. between the company. Witness assented. He went to the prisoner’s (John Thomas’s) house, on . There were several persons there — David Richards, Llethermelyn, John Thomas, Penlan, David Richards, David Evans, John James, of Groft, David Evans, of Penrhiwfach, John and Thomas Powell, John Thomas of Blanrhidian, and Thomas Thomas, of Cwmygor. There were more there who were not at the bar. There was a man named John Jones, a carpenter, there. We blackened our faces, and disguised ourselves that night. I can’t say how far the house is from Pantyfen. It might have been 10 o’clock. They did not go to deceased’s house that night, for David Thomas said they had better not go, as it was too late, and some person might tell Mr. Price, the magistrate. They agreed to go on the next night. David Thomas said, that as he was the most forward about the money, he had better not go, lest they should suspect him, but that he would show himself by going to Blaenpant, to buy a horse, and take Morgan with him as a witness to prove where he was on that night. On , they again met at the house, and a number of persons, whom witness named [all who were there on the previous night with the exception of John Jones and David Thomas], then went to the house, and having blackened their faces and disguised themselves in various ways, commenced their journey. Witness was dressed in a gown, and the others in various dresses — John Powell in a red coat. David Thomas said he was going to Blaenpant. They then went, all on foot, and when near Glangwilly they met a person with a cart, and also saw some boys in a wood near Glangwilly. One of the party ran after the boys. David Evans had something like a bayonet. David Richards and John Powell carried guns. I do not know who carried the pistol. They arrived at Pantyfen, and knocked and kicked at the door, and threatened, if they did not open it, they would do some injury. A candle having been lighted, several of them went in. This accomplice’s evidence corroborated the evidence of the residents of Pantyfen in every particular, and was very similar, with the exception of his describing the names of of the various prisoners who took part in the transactions of the night.

Cross-examined:— I did not go for the sake of getting a share of the 5l. I was afraid of David Thomas. I was examined before the Magistrates on , and in . I think I told the Magistrates about 5l., but am not quite sure that I did. [Mr. Richards then put in the witnesses depositions.]

Examination continued:— One of the guns was fired in Pantyfen yard. He had not drank anything before going, but on returning they drank a little beer at Pencader. They did no violence to the old man. David Richards, Llethermelyn, gave the old man the shilling, and the latter thanked him. He did not appear pleased. His (witness’s) object in going to Mr. Price was, because he saw that the county was in a bad state — that there would soon be no order or law, and he was constantly troubled by his wife about it. I know Margaret Richards, Abergwilly. I never spoke to her about this business. I remember I am on my oath. I will swear, and swear an honest oath, that I never told her Mr. Price had offered 50l. for informing. I know Benjamin Jones — I never spoke to him about this. Never said to Margaret Richards, if I knew Talog as well as she did I would inform against some one. I don’t know Thomas Stephen. I never told him that I had money, and was subpœned to give evidence against the prisoners, but that I had nothing to say against them but what one of the prisoners told me. [Mr. Richards here put in the depositions relative to a burglary alleged to have been committed by the same prisoners on the 22d, with a view of proving, that, in giving evidence relating to the second transaction, nothing relating to the first was mentioned by witness, but on reading the deposition it did appear that he had mentioned the former.] This witness’s examination and cross-examination lasted for two hours.

John Jones examined:— I am a carpenter living in Abergwilly. I know David Thomas, the prisoner. Saw him on . He asked me to come with him to Pantyfen. I did not know where Pantyfen was. He said he wished to get money from Gwenllian. I said I did not like to go, but at last promised to go. We were to meet at David Thomas, of Penlan’s house. He said he was not going himself. He went on ], and named the persons who were present. They were the same as those mentioned by the last witness. All the prisoners were there besides two not in custody. Witness described the circumstance of their having blackened their faces and changed their dresses, but thinking it too late they left and agreed to meet the next night. They did so all with the exception of John Jones, of Caerphilly. He was not present on the second night. The evidence relating to the arms and weapons borne by each of the prisoners was precisely the same as, and corroboratory of, the other evidence. The description given of the conduct of the parties at Pantyfen was also the same as that already given.

Cross-examined by Mr. Richards:— The old man said that he owed nothing to Gwenllian. I never heard of the proclamation offering a reward before I gave the information. Never heard of Colonel Trevor’s proclamation. Never told Mr. Benjamin Jones that Mr. Price, the Magistrate, had offered me 50l. reward for informing.

Re-examined:— Witness had been ill in bed from the time of the occurrence to the present time.

John Jones, Derllwyn, examined:— I remember hearing of people having been at Pantyfen. I was on that night by a wood near Glangwilly. There were two other boys with us. We saw about ten people walking on the road. This witness’s evidence was deemed immaterial, and he was dismissed.

David Davies examined by Mr. Chilton, said that, on one occasion, the prisoner David Thomas requested him to go with him to Penlan to get 40l. for a woman. Witness refused to go. He then wished to borrow two guns, which witness would not give. On the following day, David Thomas told him they had been at Pantyfen, and had got 1l. 1s., and had given the old man one shilling back — that they had got the note signed.

William Lewis examined, said, that in , the prisoner, David Thomas, requested him to go with him to Pantyfen, to bring a gun, pistol, and sword with him, and that he should have a sovereign. He also had asked him . He did not speak about being armed on the second time. Told him first time he would go. The second time he requested me to go with him, and I said, no I would not.

Esau Daniel examined:— Remembers previous to August fair that prisoner, David Thomas, requested him to accompany him to Llanfihangel-ar-Arth, and would give him a share of 5l..

John Jones, Caerphilly, said, that at the request of John Thomas he went to the first meeting at his house. He named all the prisoners as being present, and two others not in custody. They all disguised themselves but witness. He said that he would not go with them to Pantyfen, as he had seen David, of Bryn-amlwg, passing through the yard. David Evans was disguised in a stuff-cloak and bonnet. They left the house, and postponed going that night, and agreed to meet on the following night. Witness did not go that night. He refused to have anything to do with them.

John Guy, of the A division of Metropolitan Police, examined:– Had been a long time in search of David Evans. Went in to his father’s house. His sister denied his being in the house. On searching, he found him concealed.

Edward Edwards, was called to prove his having seen the signature of David Thomas, the prisoner, and Gwenllian Lewis attached to an agreement. The agreement was read. It was one entered into between Thomas and the female, by which she agreed to sell the alleged legacy due from Daniel Harris to her for the sum of 13l., and if he could not recover it the agreement was to be void.

John Davies proved that shortly before the outrage, John Thomas told him to go where they had been to before. Witness understood he referred to their having been at Pantyfen. Prisoner said that they had dealt too leniently with the old man, and that they were going again, that he would go there himself, and make him pay in money. He asked witness if he would come? Witness said no. He asked if his son should come. Witness declined acceding to his request. He then said, “I could procure enough of men, if I could get horses.” At last witness consented to lend him a saddle.

Mr. Chilton now announced that this was the case for the prosecution. Mr. Richards then addressed the jury for the three prisoners, David Evans, David Thomas, and Thomas Thomas, and in doing so he wished it to be understood, that he perfectly agreed with the observations made, with becoming solemnity, by the Learned Counsel (Mr. Chilton), who led for the Crown, on the atrocious enormities which had been lately committed in that county; but he contended that neither of the three prisoners represented by him were present at the time alleged. There could be no doubt but that a great outrage, as detailed in evidence, had been committed by some persons at Pantyfen, on the night in question, and he also agreed with his Learned Friend who represented the Attorney-General, that, on this occasion, the outrage was one of a private nature, under the garb of public utility. Mr. Richards then commented upon the unreasonableness of the proceeding adopted to get the vote by David Thomas when he might have known that payment could never have been enforced. The Learned Gentleman then commented upon the whole of the evidence. He referred to the rewards offered by Government, and attributed perjury to the witnesses for the prosecution. Having remarked at considerable length upon the evidence given for the prosecution, Mr. Richards proceeded to state that he would call evidence to prove that David Evans was at a distance of miles off on the night in question, having called at the house of a friend at Soar, which is nine miles distant from Pantyfen.

John Thomas, one of the prisoners, addressed the jury, and said that he had been in the same room in gaol as the witness Evan Davies for about an hour — that Davies wished the prisoner to turn Queen’s evidence, and state the same thing as he did, and that he should get a share of the 50l. which Mr. Price had given him — that he had got John Jones and another witness for the prosecution to swear the same things, and that he (prisoner) said he did not like to tell untruth about his neighbours, and that Mr. Price, the magistrate, said he would be quite safe if he would inform; but he would not do so, as he knew he had a soul. [This is the prisoner who made the statement in confession to the Magistrates].

Evan Evans was then called as a witness to prove an alibi on behalf of David Evans. He swore that the prisoner called at his house on the night in question, to make arrangements about going to Hereford.

In cross-examination witness said, that he was the prisoner’s uncle, and he fixed the time so exactly, because prisoner called at his house on the night previous to the fair at Carmarthen.

Evan Jones said he called at Evan Evans’s house on the night in question, and saw the prisoner there. This witness contradicted the last in one very material point.

Enock Jones was called to prove the same thing.

Mary Evans was called for the same purpose.

Margaret Richards, sister of David Richards, one of the parties charged (but not in custody) with being one of the burglars, gave evidence to prove an alibi for Thomas Thomas. She also proved that Evan Davies, one of the prosecution witnesses, said that he had been offered 50l. for swearing about Pantyfen.

Benjamin Jones was brought on to prove a similar thing.

Mary Richards, the wife of one of the parties charged, but since absconded, came to prove that one of the prosecution witnesses made to her a statement, but which had been contradicted in cross-examination by that witness.

Several witnesses to character having been called, Mr. Chilton was in the act of replying, when the Judge intimated that, as the case had occupied the whole day, and would in all probability occupy some hours longer, the Court had better be adjourned. Accommodations for the night were then ordered to be provided for the jury, and the Court was adjourned.

. —  the burglary case was proceeded with. — Several witnesses were called to give the various prisoners good characters.

Mr. Chilton then addressed the jury in reply. He commenced by vindicating the characters of the witnesses for the prosecutions from the attacks made upon them by Mr. Richards. He was extremely sorry that in his defence his Learned Friend had found it necessary so indiscriminately to attack all the witnesses, from the Magistrates who performed their arduous duties so fearlessly during the late alarming state of the country, to the policeman who did his duties, and acted under the direction of the Magistrates. The Learned Gentleman then proceeded to point out the gross contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses who were called to prove alibis, all of whom, with the exception of Benjamin Jones, were relations either of the prisoners, or of those who, being charged with the burglary, had absconded. Many of the discourses said to have been made use of about the proclamations, were stated to have taken place even before the rewards had been offered. Mr. Chilton then dwelt at considerable length upon the evidence of accomplices. It would be dangerous to convict upon the evidence of an accomplice, unless corroborated in some important points by the evidence of untainted witnesses. Such, he contended, was the case in this instance. The Learned Counsel for the defence had contended that it was extremely improbable that David Thomas should have committed himself into the confidence of so many persons as he was represented to have done; but it indisputably appeared that the offence had been committed by some people. Some persons had committed themselves into the power of so many people. Then came the questions, Who did so? Who had a motive for doing so? He (Mr. Chilton) contended, that a strong motive was proved by the agreement entered into between the prisoner Thomas and Gwenllian Lewis — that the former should pay her 13l. in case he should, by any means, procure a larger sum from Daniel Harries, the deceased. How could the accomplices have known anything respecting that agreement, had they not been informed about it by the prisoner? But even setting aside their evidence, the guilt of the two Thomas’s was proved by that of untainted witnesses. Mr. Chilton went over the whole of the evidence, and concluded a very powerful address by entreating the jury to give the case that weight and consideration which its importance deserved and give the prisoners the benefit of any reasonable doubts.

The Learned Judge then summed up the evidence. The first question for the jury to consider was, whether an offence of the nature of that described by the witnesses had been committed. It was his duty to tell them that, if entrance was effected into a house by threat or intimidation, in law, it amounted to burglary, though the door might have been opened not by force, but by its having been opened by the inmates of the house. However strong the evidence against David Thomas, as an accessory before the fact, might be, yet, if the others were not guilty, he could not be convicted, for he was charged with having abetted and procured them, and not other persons. His Lordship then directed the jury how to receive the evidence of accomplices. The law empowered juries to convict upon the evidence of accomplices only, yet it was never safe to convict upon their evidence, unless corroborated in some important points by other evidence given by untainted witnesses. His Lordship then read over the most important portions of the evidence, and contrasted the various parts corroborative of, or apparently inconsistent with, the rest of the evidence.

The jury then retired, and after about forty minutes absence, returned a verdict of Guilty against all the prisoners.

You may note that this account tends to report the prosecution’s case as fact and often neglects to say what the defense witnesses actually said (summarizing instead, often in an unflattering way). Maybe they just weren’t very credible, or maybe this is another case of bias in the English-language press in Wales.

There’s another, briefer, account in the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser that differs in some respects (including even such things as the names of some of the witnesses and those they testified about).

One difference is that Evan Davies, one of the accomplices turned informer, made an explicit “Rebecca” connection, saying that during the robbery: “We told the old man that Becca had come there to get the money which he owed Gwenllian Lewis under a will.”

Another is the account of John Jones’s testimony. In this version, he says that it was David Thomas who came to him to ask him to join the conspiracy. Also, this version lists the people in attendance at the meeting: “John Jones, (one of the witnesses,) Thomas Thomas, Esau Davies, John Thomas, David Richards, John Powell, John James, David Evans, and John Thomas, Penlan, father of David Thomas, who was also there.”

The description of John Guy’s testimony of how he found David Evans is more detailed: “I then searched the house, and found the prisoner in a loft under some straw, with a rug wrapped around his head, to conceal his face. There was no bed there. His clothes were brought from below, by one of his sisters, I think.”

But this account is even more sparing on presenting the case for the defense. It just gives this one-sentence summary: “Mr. Richards, for the prisoners, whom he defended, addressed the jury; and called witnesses, who gave several of the prisoners good characters.”

Another Rebeccaite case that was heard during the Carmarthenshire Spring Assizes on (account from the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser):

James Thomas and Thomas Thomas, were then placed at the bar, and charged with having, on , feloniously aided and abetted one John Jones, (Shoni Scyborfawr,) in discharging a certain loaded fire-arm, called a gun, at one Margaret Thomas, with intent to murder her, or to do her some grievous bodily harm. [The Cambrian adds: “In other counts of the indictment the intent was varied, and also the individuals shot at. — This case excited the greatest interest, in consequence of the respectability of the family and connexions of the former prisoner.”]

The prisoners pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Chilton addressed the jury for the prosecution, and stated that the prisoners were charged with shooting at one Margaret Thomas, with another person of the name of John Jones, called Shoni Scyborfawr, who had been convicted of Rebecca riots at the Winter Assizes. Thomas Thomas was a most respectable man, and he was sorry to see him standing at the bar to answer the change of taking part in these disgraceful outrages. He begged the jury to dismiss all prejudice from their minds, and give the matter full consideration; and observed that he would bring evidence before them, which would prove the guilt of the prisoners. The prosecutor was one Evan Thomas, a weaver, at Porthyrhyd, whose house had been frequently attacked by the Rebeccaites. On , the mob came to the house, and demanded admittance, put the muzzles of their guns through the window, and fired them into the room, at the wife and children; and a shot entered the thigh of one of the children, and it was a mercy the prisoners were not standing at that bar to be tried on the charge of murder. The son-in-law would prove the identity of Thomas Thomas, as he knew his person and voice well, and heard him giving directions to the mob, saying, “Shoot him, shoot him.” The women also knew his voice. A paper of protection to Evan Thomas, written by Mrs. Thomas, wife of Thomas Thomas, the prisoner, was read. It desired protection to him from the further molestations of ’Becca, as he expressed his contrition for anything he had done against her, and he would give up the office of constable.

[The Cambrian includes this part of the speech, which gives more details about the attack: “Were he calling the attention of the jury to a mere case of the destruction of a turnpike gate, or of a toll-house, he should feel himself called upon to offer some observations upon the awful and important responsibility of the oath which they had taken, and which called upon them to disregard all prejudices — aye, even if they considered that no very great crime was committed by pulling down a turnpike-gate or house, and so get rid of tolls… But, however much opinions might differ respecting gates and tolls, no honest man could, by any possibility, sympathize with such outrages as he should prove were committed on the night in question, under the guise of Rebeccaism. The prosecutor in this case was a weaver and small farmer, who had also acted for a number of years as constable in the parish of Porthyrhyd, and the only offence with which he was charged was, that he honestly performed his duties as a constable, which rendered him very inimical to those who, calling themselves Rebeccaites, had resolved upon exterminating turnpike-gates. In consequence of this, his life was in peril; he had received letter after letter containing all kinds of threats. His house was attacked, night after night, so that it had become impossible for him longer to continue residing in it. He had therefore left it on , his wife, son-in-law, two daughters and children remaining therein. On , in the dead of night, after having retired to rest — they were aroused by a mob, in which were a great number of persons dressed after the fashion of Rebecca, armed with guns, pickaxes, bludgeons, and various other implements. They demanded that Evan Thomas should be given up to them. His daughter, alarmed as she was, got up, and assured them that Evan Thomas was not in the house. They replied that they would have him, or destroy all who were in the house. They then pulled down a temporary shutter — for the window had been destroyed on a previous night — and pointed three guns, which it would again appear were loaded with slugs, with their muzzles towards the half-naked woman. This was repeated, and he should prove to the jury that some of the guns were loaded with shot; and it was almost a miracle that the prisoners had not to stand at that bar, and answer to a charge of murder — for murder it must unquestionably have been were any lives lost on that occasion. Slugs were afterwards discovered in the furniture, and a shot had been extracted from the child’s thigh. … He should tell them one circumstance, which showed that Thomas Thomas took part in the Rebecca disturbances, and had some influence with those people. Attacks had been made on the house of the prosecutor, Evan Thomas, in , and he went to the residence of Thomas Thomas, with the hope of making a friend of him, and asked him for protection from the depredations of the Rebeccaites. The prisoner promised to write him a kind of paper or petition, if he called next day. He did so on a subsequent day, when the prisoner gave him a piece of written paper, and told him if he would get a few of the neighbours to sign it, the Beccas would leave him alone. The paper was written in prisoner’s presence, by Mrs. Thomas, who undoubtedly, from the style of the writing, &c., was a person of respectable education. The Learned Counsel then read the document; it was to the following effect:— ‘The undersigned, Evan Thomas, begs to inform those who call themselves Beccaites, that he is heartily sorry if he has done anything to injure any one, and sincerely hopes they will allow his family and self to rest in peace from henceforth. He sincerely promises never again to act as constable in this or any other parish, as he is told that is one great objection you have to him, but will from hence endeavour to become a comfort to his family, and regain the friendship of the country, which he finds he has entirely lost.’ ”]

After the examination of the witness, his lordship directed the jury to return a verdict of “Not guilty” of that charge.

The Cambrian is almost as vague. Apparently the prosecution presented one witness — George Thomas — who, in the Cambrian’s words, testified “in nearly the same words as given in the following charge of misdemeanor against the same defendants” but apparently didn’t give enough substantiation to the felony charge. The judge seems to have ruled that if the defendants had actually had the intent to shoot to kill or wound the unarmed woman trapped like an animal in a cage, they would have probably actually hit the mark, and so the prosecutor was going to have too high a bar to meet.

So the prosecutor went with Plan B: misdemeanour charges.

The same persons were again put on their trial, and charged with having, on , riotously and tumultuously assembled together, at Porthyrhyd, in the parish of Llanddarog, in this county, and then and there made a great noise, riot, and disturbance, and then and there divers of her Majesty’s liege subjects put in bodily fear, against the peace of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, &c.

The prisoners were acquitted.

Here, again, the Cambrian gives more detail, with the testimony for the defense and prosecution.

I am the son-in-law of the prosecutor, Evan Thomas, who was a constable in , and lived at Porthyrhyd, in a cottage adjoining the road. My wife, self, and child, slept in his house on . Mary Thomas, Elizabeth Thomas, and Evan Thomas’s wife were in the house. We had retired about ten o’clock. Soon after retiring, we heard great noises of blowing of horns, &c. The mob were passing in the direction from Llanddarog to Swansea. We heard firing. In a short time after, when they were returning, I also heard firing. The mob were calling for Evan Thomas. Witness lighted a candle, when he saw three guns pointed between a board of the window and the wall. The board was then pulled down, when witness perceived that it was a fine moonlight night. I saw a large crowd of disguised persons; there were from thirty to fifty people outside. After my mother-in-law opened the window, she said, “I know you, old fellow.” They called his wife to come out, and go on her knees before them. She said she would not, if she were torn to pieces. Witness then went to the door, and the mob called on him to bring out Evan Thomas, or he should suffer instead of him. They then commenced shooting at the house. I saw the defendant, Thomas Thomas, there — I am sure he was there; had known him for two years, and seen him often before. I went up to the defendant, about ten days before, to ask a favour, on part of my father, about Rebecca. Defendant said, if he asked the favour for himself he would do it, but that all the country was angry to his father for being a constable.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson: Thomas Thomas wore a white gown down to his knees. He wore a straw hat. I well knew his voice. He told them to shoot my wife. He spoke English. Witness could not speak English. He spoke English, and said, “shoot him.” (Laughter). This took place on . I cannot say when I gave the information. I think it was a week before the Winter Assizes. I have always been confident that he was there. I never told Elizabeth Jones that it was impossible to recognize one of the parties, in consequence of the smoke. I do not remember seeing her, in company with two others, by a school-room, when I told her, “I die if I knew one of them. I could not, in consequence of the smoke.” I never told her so. I know David Jones, Llwynmor. I might have told him that I knew none of them, as I suspected his servant was there. I never told Margaret Roberts that the devil would not know them. I never told David Davies, Pontfaen, on the evening after the disturbance, that “I could not know one of them, as I should answer judgment, because the house was so full of smoke.” — Witness was cross-examined at considerable length as to his hiving told several people, in conversation with them, that he could not recognize them. Reference was made to conversations with about a dozen, people. I told some people, said witness, that I knew them, and to others that I did not, because I was afraid of them, and suspected that either they or their connexions were present.

Mr. Hall cross-examined witness on behalf of James Thomas:– The examination was principally directed to prove that, in conversation, witness had contradicted statements given by him in evidence.

Margaret Thomas, the last witness’s wife, next gave evidence:— She positively identified, first, John Jones, alias Shoni Scyborfawr. She said to James Thomas, “Ah! old fellow, who gave you permission to come in here?” He then smiled, and turned round. I have known him, said witness, from a child; have spoken with him hundreds of times. Could not identify Thomas Thomas’s person, but was sure of his voice. He was at a distance, and had a white shirt and a straw hat about him. Witness said, “If I have done anything wrong, send the law towards me.” One of the mob said, “The law is is now nearly all in the hands of ’Becca and her daughters.”

Witness was examined at considerable length by Mr. Hall, who put in evidence the witness’s deposition, taken before the committing Magistrates.

Mary Thomas, sister of the last witness, slept in her father’s house on the night it was attacked by the mob. Heard a person crying out, “Shoot, shoot him.” I will swear it was Thomas Thomas’s voice.

Cross-examined:— I will swear I slept in my father’s house that night. I did not sleep with Martha Vaughan on that night. I had slept with her a week before. I never told David Rees that I had that night slept with Martha Vaughan.

Elizabeth Thomas, the wife of Evan Thomas, was examined, to prove that the last witness slept in the house on that night.

Evan Thomas (the celebrated Porthyrhyd lion), was next examined:– is 56 years of age. Has acted 16 or 17 years as a constable. My house was attacked in . I met Thos. Thomas and his wife on the road. I told his wife that I wished to have quiet with the ’Beccas — that they destroyed my things. Mrs. Thomas said the only objection the country had to witness was, that he was a constable, and she added, that he must give that office up, and they would leave him alone. She also asked him to come to the house, and she would give him a paper. He said he could not that day, but if they wished assistance at the hay-harvest, he would give it. He went there, and worked a day. In the evening, Thomas Thomas told him that he would give him a paper. His wife called me in, and commenced writing. She gave me a paper to protect me from ’Becca. I have got the paper. [Witness then produced the written paper, which is given in the Learned Counsel’s opening statement.]

Mr. Wilson now addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant, Mr. Thomas Thomas. The jury had heard from his Learned Friend, Mr. Chilton, that his client, Mr. Thomas, was a man of respectable station in society, had borne an irreproachable character, and, in addition to being a considerable farmer and freeholder himself, he was the son of as respectable a freeholder as any in the county, and, therefore, the most unlikely to be connected with the outrageous attack which undoubtedly had been committed on the house of the poor man, Evan Thomas on the night in question. The Learned Counsel read nearly the whole of the evidence, making comments thereon, and contending that the witnesses must either have been mistaken, or grossly perjured, in swearing so positively to the identity of the prisoner.

Mr. Lloyd Hall then addressed the jury for the defendant, James Thomas, contending that the statements and manners of the witnesses for the prosecution were not such as to entitle their evidence to the belief of the jury. He then proceeded to state that James Thomas was a lime-burner, in the employ of R.M. Philipps, Esq., and that, on the night in question, he was engaged at his work at a distance off at the time of the riot.

Elizabeth Jones, servant to the defendant, Thomas Thomas, was then called. She remembered the night of the riot at Evan Thomas’s house. Saw the defendant and his wife shut the bedroom door. She slept next door to Mr. Thomas. No person could go out of the house without her knowing it. He did not go out that night.

Cross-examined by Mr. Chilton:— She generally slept so lightly, that she could hear a cat go out of the room. There was a seamstress and another person in the room.

By the Court:– got up about the same time the morning before and the morning after the riot. I got up the previous morning at five, and retired at twelve.

The seamstress was called to prove that she slept with the last witness. Remembers Mr. and Mrs. Thomas going to bed, about twelve o’clock. Heard great noise of horns and shooting before Mr. and Mrs. Thomas came into the house — neither did go out afterwards.

Elizabeth Jones, David Jones, Margaret Williams, David Davies, David Jenkins, Esther Jones, Thomas Davies, John Thomas, John John, and others, were called as witnesses, to prove that various statements had been made by George Thomas and other witnesses, contradictory of the evidence given by them in Court, such as saying, “The devil himself could not know the people there, as they were so disguised” — “if I was to answer judgment at this moment, I could not recognize one, as they were so disguised,[”] — and that George Thomas said, “that he was ready to swear, before God and man, that he knew no person.”

John Thomas, father of the prisoner, James Thomas, was called to prove a similar statement. Remembered he had a job about , which required the repairing of some tools, and that his son brought them to him at such a time, that he must have been engaged in repairing them on the night of the riot.

Mrs. Evans, wife of the Rev. Stephen Evans, Curate of some parish in Carmarthenshire, gave evidence relative to a conversation, during which Evan Thomas declared he did not know any person at the riot.

Several witnesses were then called to sustain the alibi on behalf of James Thomas.

Margaret Vaughan and David Rees swore — the former that Mary Thomas, one of the witnesses for the prosecution, had slept with her on the night of the riot; and the latter, that she informed him that she had slept at the woman Vaughan’s house.

Richard Rees, Esq., County Treasurer, and Eliezer Wiliams, Esq., Surgeon, gave the prisoner Thomas Thomas a good character, but admitted in cross-examination that latterly he had been a reputed Rebeccaite.

Mr. Chilton, Q.C., then replied to the evidence adduced for the defence, in a very able and energetic speech.

His Lordship then summed up the evidence, observing, that with respect to the first question for the consideration of the jury — whether any riot had taken place on the night in question — there could be no kind of doubt. The next point was, whether the prisoner, or either of them, was present. His Lordship observed, that there was nothing either in the evidence or manner of the witnesses for the prosecution, to induce an opinion that they had perjured themselves; but if the witnesses for the defence were believed, the jury must come to that conclusion as to some points. With respect to the evidence of the witness Vaughan, she might have been mistaken as to the night on which Mary Thomas slept with her; but if it was on the night of the riot, the latter must have perjured herself. His Lordship then pointed out the various points of evidence given in defence, rather corroborative than otherwise, of the prosecution. His Lordship most carefully recapitulated the whole of the evidence bearing upon the case, and offered some observations relating to alibis.

After his Lordship had concluded the jury retired, and returned in less than ten minutes, with a verdict of Not Guilty for both defendants.

Back to the Pembrokeshire Herald and General Advertiser:

The following prisoners were then placed at the bar to receive the sentence of the court:

John Harries [Harris?], Isaac Charles, Job Evans, John Lewis, David Williams, and David Thomas, convicted of riot at the Carmarthen Workhouse, on , the former of whom was sentenced to 12 calendar months’ hard labour, and the others to eight calendar months’ each.

[The Cambrian adds these remarks from the judge: “The case of the defendant Harris showed, that there were to be found persons somewhat above the lowest grade in the ranks of the Rebeccaites, though he thought that there never had arisen a popular agitation produced by such gross ignorance. As Harries ought, from his station in society, to have known his duty better than to allow himself to become the ringleader and instigator of this proceeding, some distinction must be made between the punishment awarded him and that awarded the other defendants.”]

Jonathan Jones, Howell Lewis, David Lewis, David Davies, and Jonathan Lewis, convicted of a riot at Talog, were sentenced to 8 calendar months’ imprisonment with hard labour.

The Cambrian adds another case here: of Thomas Hughes, John Jones, and Benjamin Jones, “convicted of a riot, and the destruction of Pontileche Gate” The judge said they had been convicted of a misdemeanor but were probably guilty of a felony, but hadn’t been charged with a felony because this would mean trying them before a common jury, which might have led to jury nullification — “It was a shocking thing to think that there were grounds for imagining that there were some persons of a disposition to sympathise with such depredations, even of the stations in society of persons eligible to serve on juries, who were bound by their oaths to support and vindicate the laws of their country,” he said, perhaps reflecting on the case decided that day. He sentenced them to twelve months of hard labor apiece.

David Thomas, Thomas Powell, John Thomas, John James, Thomas Thomas, John Thomas, Evan Davies, and David Evans, convicted of burglary and robbery at Pantyfen, in the parish of Llanfihangel-ar-arth, were called on, and the first was sentenced to 20 years’ transportation, for being an accessory before the fact, and the instigator to this disgraceful outrage; and all the others were sentenced to 10 years transportation.

His lordship, in addressing the prisoners, observed that they had been found guilty of an offence of the greatest magnitude; that they had taken advantage of the disturbances which unhappily prevailed in this and the adjoining counties, to serve their own private and wicked purposes; but it would be shewn to them that they would not be allowed to trample upon the laws of the country with impunity, and he would send them to a country where they would have no opportunity of committing such a disgraceful & cruel outrage again.

The scene which took place in the court, after the sentences were delivered on the latter prisoners, baffles all description. [?!]

Quite the lazy reporter. Here is how the Cambrian described the scene: “Immediately after the last sentence had been pronounced, the scene in Court became most affecting — perhaps awful would be more expressive of the effect produced upon the minds of the spectators. Nearly all the prisoners — who, though they had before shewn no carelessness or disregard, yet had manifested no great concern at their situation — now burst into fits of inconsolable agony, while in different parts of the Court, women were seen in hysterical fits, and others of both sexes gave vent to their grief in loud cries, and, in some instances, in terrific yells. The officers had some difficulty in removing the prisoners. A sentence of such severity was apparently quite unexpected, both by the prisoners and their friends.”

After the prisoners had been removed, his lordship observed that the persons charged with destroying a turnpike gate near Llanddarog [Thomas Davies, Phillip Thomas, and Joseph Clement] would be admitted to bail, until the next assize; and the civil causes not tried or settled out of court, would be left as remanents.

The issue of The Cambrian covered a late Rebeccaite trial. Excerpts:

Carmarthenshire Lent Assizes.

…His Lordship observed, that after perusing the depositions placed before him, respecting the cases into which it would be their duty to inquire, he thought he might fairly venture to congratulate them on the marked improvement in the state of public feeling, since the duty last devolved upon him of presiding in that Court; for, although many of the charges in the calendar were of a description similar to those which then formed the subject of inquiry, yet it appeared that, for the most part, they were offences committed during that time; and taking the calendar as a whole, he thought there were in it no features to induce him to think that any of the cases indicated the existence of that spirit of insubordination, and the reckless destruction of life and property, which at that time prevailed in the county. He should have stated that, since his arrival at Carmarthen, he had been informed of a serious depredation upon property, but he would attribute that to a malignant feeling on the part of one or more individuals, than to anything partaking of the character of a general combination.…

Arson.

Benjamin Jones, 28, labourer, Samuel Thomas, 30, farmer, and John Thomas, 28, shoemaker, were arraigned upon an indictment, charging them with having, on , feloniously and maliciously set fire to the dwelling-house of the late Thomas Thomas, of Pantycerrig, in the parish of Llanfihangle-Rhos-y-Corn. In other counts they were charged with setting fire to a cow-house adjoining the dwelling-house, &c.; in others, with setting fire to the dwelling-house, persons being therein at the time. This was a Government prosecution. Mr Chilton, Q.C. Mr. Evans, Q.C., and Mr. V. Williams appeared for the Crown; Mr. Carne, Mr. Hall, and Mr. Richards defended the prisoners separately.

Mr. Chilton addressed the jury on the part of the prosecution. He observed, that this was a charge arising out of the late Rebecca disturbances. The prisoners at the bar were indicted for the most serious offence known to the law, with the exception of murder, and one which, even in the present state of the law, rendered them liable to the forfeiture of their lives, provided they were convicted on the last count — charging them with having fired the house, persons being in it at the time. … The circumstances of the case were these:– On the house of the prosecutor was burnt down, and that it could not be the result of accident was quite evident. It appeared that the cowhouse formed part of the house, being separated therefrom by a wattled partition. Over the cowhouse was a loft, on which were two rooms, a bedroom and a dairy, in the former of which a servant named Margaret Bowen, and a little girl of the name of Catherine Jones, slept. Between the room and the dairy there was an old wattled partition, full of holes, through which any person in the bedroom would be enabled to see any parties in the loft, into which was an entrance from the yard. When crimes of the atrocious nature of that with which the prisoners were charged had been committed, it was natural and necessary to endeavour to find out the motives which might have induced the commission of the crime. For this purpose, it would be necessary to state that, on , an attack was made upon Pantcerrig, by a party of Rebeccaites, when on , Mr. Thomas, who was since found dead, and whose death is still a mystery, visited Carmarthen, and gave evidence before the Magistrates against two parties, which resulted in their committal for trial. It was also proved, that on the return of Mr. Thomas from Carmarthen, a witness named James met one of the prisoners near Brechfa, when he requested the witness to endeavour to meet Thomas, and ask him what had become of the Evanses (the parties committed). They added that they had blacked themselves, with the intention of intercepting him, but that they arrived too late, he having passed previous to their coming up. This witness subsequently walked part of the road with Mr. Thomas, and cautioned him with respect to what he had heard and seen. On the same day the prisoner, Benj. Jones, borrowed a gun from a person named Davies, for the purpose, as he alleged, of killing rabbits, and he promised to return it that evening. The lender, however, did not receive his gun back for two months — Jones having absconded. At the time he borrowed it, he was accompanied by his brother, who also had a gun in his possession. On the arrival home of the old man, Mr. Thomas, at eleven o’clock, he intimated his desire of sleeping out of the house that night, in consequence of information communicated to him. He accordingly went out, and about twelve o’clock the wife retired to bed, in a room called the parlour; Margaret Bowen, the servant, and the little girl Catherine, having previously retired to the bed in the room adjoining the loft over the cowhouse. However, Margaret Bowen having gone to bed in a state of great alarm, could not sleep; and in the course of two hours after having retired, she heard a noise at the back of the house, and on raising herself in a sitting posture in bed, she was enabled, through the holes in the partition, distinctly to see Benj. Jones in the next room, having a gun in his hand; she next saw Samuel Thomas, and next John Thomas, the latter of whom also had a gun. These persons she distinctly saw, and knowing them well before, she was enabled positively to swear to them. They were but slightly disguised, merely having turned their coats inside out. She also heard Benjamin Jones, whose voice she was well acquainted with, say “I will do very well with the old devil.” She saw a fourth party, but could not positively swear to his identity. She immediately went down stairs, passed through the kitchen, in which a labourer named David Davies slept, and into the room in which her mistress slept. To her she immediately communicated what she had seen, and that she had recognised some persons, but she did not then name them. Her mistress requested her to lay in bed with her, but she had hardly remained there ten or fifteen minutes, before they heard the noise of firing, soon after which the smell of smoke was perceived. On returning to the loft, she found all in flames; she endeavoured to get part of her clothes, and went down stairs. She afterwards returned, and found the bed encircled by fire, which was fast gaining on the whole roof. She immediately aroused the little girl, who was fast asleep, and carried her down stairs, without having time to save any of the clothes. The servants, some of whom slept in the outhouses, were aroused, but the house was completely burnt to the ground. It appeared that the witnesses had given information to a magistrate at the time, but owing to Benjamin Jones’s absence, it was thought discreet not to agitate the matter as against the Thomases, until Jones, supposed to have been the chief incendiary, had been apprehended.

The various witnesses testified, Margaret Bowen being the clincher, as she was the one who claimed to have seen and recognized the defendants at the scene of the crime. The defense therefore attacked that witness relentlessly, saying she could not have seen what she claimed to see in a dark barn at night, that she had made inconsistent statements after the event, and that besides the defendants had alibis. Witnesses then testified to each of these things, and must have been fairly convincing, as:

The jury retired, and after a short absence returned a verdict of “Not Guilty” as regards the three prisoners.

The following day, though, Benjamin Jones was back in the dock, charged with “assaulting Margaret Bowen, the principal witness in the case yesterday, with intent to murder her — to maim or disable — to disfigure — or do grievous bodily harm.” Bowen took the stand:

…and said, that some time after the attackes on her master’s house, and after she had said that she saw the prisoner, her master was found dead in a brook; this was three days before the last Winter Assizes. Some days after the body was found, there was a sale at Bergwm. The body was found near Glynllydan, where prisoner resided. On the evening of the day of Bergwm sale, she (witness) went out to gather wood. She observed the prisoner lying on the other side of a hedge. She asked him what he did there, and he asked her “where old Thomas, of Tynyforth (a farm in the neighbourhood), was?” She answered, “What do you want with him, do you wish to serve him in the same way as you did my master.” He said, “Oh, damn you, you old jade, I am not sorry for anything I have done to your old master, unless it is that I did not kill him sooner.” He then laid hold of her, placed his hand upon her mouth, which prevented her crying out, took a knife from his pocket and drew it several times across her throat, threatening to kill her. He then struck her on the nose until she fell insensible to the ground. She soon became better, and returned to the temporary house in the yard. On going in she found there were several wounds in her neck; immediately communicated with her mistress, who tied up the wounds. She subsequently became subject to fits. She went before Mr. Price, the magistrate, in three weeks. — Witness was searchingly cross-examined by Mr. N. Carne on behalf of the prisoner. [The jury here examined the witness’s neck, and found in it the mark of three wounds, and one on the chin.] Will swear I did not make them myself. Will swear I never told David James that a bramble in the hedge caused the wounds.

Mary Thomas and John Rowlands (a servant at the Thomas home) corroborated Bowen’s testimony. The defense brought forward witnesses who testified that Bowen had been bribed by Mary Thomas to invent the testimony, and others who testified as to an alibi for Jones. This time the Crown won its conviction. “Another bill,” unspecified by the article, “was preferred before the Grand Jury in the course of the day against the prisoner” and he was again found guilty. “There are other indictments against Benjamin Jones, but having been convicted of the capital charge it is supposed they will not be proceeded with.” Sentencing was deferred.

The Grand Jury have ignored the bill preferred against John Morgan, John Howells, David Howells, Thomas Thomas, John Jones, Benjamin Jones, and William Hopkin, charged with having set fire to a house in the parish of Llangadoc, on . It appeared the prisoner, Thomas Thomas, having been first committed upon the charge, on the evidence of untainted witnesses, was subsequently admitted approver against the rest; and though before the Magistrates he gave such evidence as resulted in the committal of the others, yet he turned round before the Grand Jury, and swore he knew nothing about the affair. — The Grand Jury also ignored the bill preferred against William Hopkin for demolishing Pontlleche turnpike gate, and also a bill against him for having stolen some smith’s tools.

And, from the same paper, an indication that Rebecca was not quite through yet:

Rebecca Again.

A Correspondent writes– “On , or , some outrageous ruffians broke off the staples, and drew off its hinges, a gate which was on a wood near Ynisygerwn, and threw it on the middle of the high road, to the great danger and inconvenience of travellers. Some of those wanton poachers think it proper to avenge themselves by destroying private property; but I trust that they shall meet that punishment which is their deserts.